Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cv-03149-TWT.
For Joan Haynes, Troy Wayne Haynes, Plaintiff - Appellants: Joshua Gilbert Davis, JG Davis and Associates, LLC, Atlanta, GA; Andrew Evans, Evans Law, LLC, Atlanta, GA; Andrew G. Phillips, McGuireWoods, LLP, Atlanta, GA.
For Mccalla Raymer, LLC, Defendant - Appellee: Steven James Flynn, Kent Edward Altom, Brett Christian Giordano, Jimmy Thomas Howell Jr., Robert Michael Sheffield, Kyle Clark Spurgeon, McCalla Raymer, LLC, Roswell, GA.
For Bac Home Loans Servicing, LP, Defendant - Appellee: Andrew G. Phillips, McGuireWoods, LLP, Atlanta, GA.
For Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (Mers), Defendant - Appellee: Jarrod Sean Mendel, Andrew G. Phillips, Paul Anthony Rogers, McGuireWoods, LLP, Atlanta, GA.
For CHARLES TROY CROUSE, Esq., Esq.; Individually, and as an Officer of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., THOMAS SEARS, Esq.; Individually, and as an Officer of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.: Robert Michael Sheffield, McCalla Raymer, LLC, Roswell, GA.
For Debbie R. Foushee: Alexandra M. Dishun, John H. Williamson, Locke Lord, LLP, Atlanta, GA.
For Prommis Solutions, Llc: Alexandra M. Dishun, Adamson B. Starr, John H. Williamson, Locke Lord, LLP, Atlanta, GA.
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
MARCUS, Circuit Judge:
Joan Haynes and Troy Wayne Haynes (the " Haynes" ) appeal from the final order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees McCalla Raymer, LLC, BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (now Bank of America, N.A. or " BANA" ), and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (" MERS" ), in this action arising out of BANA's foreclosure of the Haynes's residence. In the complaint, as amended, the Haynes alleged wrongful foreclosure, fraud, civil conspiracy, as well as violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, 12 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (" RESPA" ), the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (" the FDCPA" ), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (" RICO" ). On appeal, the Haynes argue that: (1) the district court failed to consider their objections to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation (" R& R" ); (2) the district court erred in denying their motion to add a party and amend the complaint; (3) the district court erred in granting summary judgment to McCalla Raymer on the FDCPA claim; and (4) the district court erred in granting summary judgment to BANA on the wrongful foreclosure claim. After thorough review, we affirm.
" We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo," viewing all of the facts in the record in the light most favorable to the non-movant. See Skop v. City of Atlanta, 485 F.3d 1130, 1136 (11th Cir. 2007). Summary judgment is proper where " there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). We review the district court's denial of a motion for leave to amend for abuse of discretion. SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 600 F.3d 1334, 1336 (11th Cir. 2010). We may affirm the district court's ruling on any ground supported by the record. Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley, 694 F.3d 1294, 1309 (11th Cir. 2012).
First, we are unpersuaded by the Haynes's claim that the district court failed to consider their objections to the R& R. " In the absence of some affirmative indication to the contrary, we assume all courts base rulings upon a review of the entire record." Funchess v. Wainwright, 772 F.2d 683, 694 (11th Cir. 1985). The Haynes have pointed to nothing in the record to suggest that the district court did not consider their objections, which were filed before the district court issued its order. Thus, we assume the district court reviewed the objections and rejected them.
In any event, even if the objections were not considered, the arguments were repetitive of those they had made to the magistrate judge. Because, as we discuss below, there was no merit to the Haynes's claims, any failure to review them would have been harmless error. See Braxton v. Estelle,641 F.2d 392, 397 (5th Cir. Unit A Apr. 1981) (per curiam) (holding that because " the district judge could assess the merits of the petition from its face," the district court's failure to review objections by the petitioner, who may have not received notice of the R& R, was harmless (quotation omitted)); Rutledge v. Wainwright,625 F.2d 1200, 1206 (5th Cir. ...